Nerd Pride Radio

Alo, if you look at the FBI's reports on active shooter incidents in the US, you'll find that the "military style rifle" isn't the "weapon of choice for mass shooters". The most common weapon is the handgun. Which, when you think about, makes sense. Handguns are easily concealable. It's much easier to sneak a handgun into a place than a rifle or long arm. Handguns and Pistols are what the majority of gun violence is committed with.

And active shooters are different than "regular" crime. Most regular crime is impulsive, poorly planned, and it shows. Active shooters tend to obsess about the violence they intend to enact. They create elaborate plans, and they act on them. Take the Vegas shooter. He didn't just grab a rifle and walk into a mall and shoot up the joint. He planned it. He figure out his "dope"(the adjustments for firing at specific ranges, because guns are ultimately math), he rented a room for a specific field of fire, he equipped his weapons for his task. That's generally a very aberrant behavior.

And it should terrify us that while active shooters are extremely rare, they seem to be increasing, while overall violent crime has been decreasing. That's an aberration. It is scary. But the problem with it is that it's not easy to predict nor to prevent.

I understand your use of the word 'meaningless', and you have a good point. But that's not how I was using it, and I think the literal definition I was using was very clear.

I wasn't making any other point.

Fair enough. It just irks me. Almost every popular civilian firearm throughout history has been based on a military firearm. I think that's because, militarily speaking, guns are used to kill, and do so effectively. About the only time this wasn't true was when muskets lacked rifling. Rifles were typically civilian hunting arms, because the required a longer time to reload, and greater skill to use effectively(if you're only tained to shoot at targets 50yds away, having a rifle that can hit a target 300yds away requires greater skill to use at those ranges). But once rifle-muskets and then cartridge rifles were developed, civilian firearms have largely resembled the military firearms of their day.

Today, the major difference between a "military" and "civilian" rifle is whether or not it can fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. But even in the military, it's generally preferred to use semi-automatic fire, except in very explicit situations. Which is why the US army went from automatic M16s(hold the trigger down and it fires until empty) and burst fire(squeeze the trigger, fires 3 shots). Yet, it's almost impossible to legally acquire an automatic or burst fire weapon in most countries. So, by definition, most "military style weapons" are not.

It's largely an arbitrary and aesthetic criteria for defining a weapon. I can't speak for New Zealand's gun laws(I don't live there, so I don't really study them. If i ever plan on making a trip to NZ and I intend to bring my own guns, I'll study them more), but in the US, most "assault weapon bans" are very arbitrary. A ruger Mini-14 with a "traditional" rifle stock made of wood is considered a "sporting gun", while the same gun with a polymer stock(probably black, hence the term "black rifle") would be considered a "military style" gun. They're the same gun.

Oh, sure, there are advantages: polymer stocks don't absorb water, so the humidity doesn't change how the gun handles. And they're generally cheaper and easier to manufacture than traditional wood. But it's still got the same base mechanics. It's like painting your jeep black and calling it "military style".

I thought military style Jeeps would be olive.

I mean, whatever. The point is that the color of the paint or the design of ergonomic features doesn't change the core properties of the object.

Giant Clanging Truth Bell Clanging!

Prior domestic violence is the common denominator in almost every single case.

Those in Congress not supporting VAWA, you are seen and money diverted accordingly.